Tag Archives: FACTS

[WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
——————————————————————MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?

Jimmy Donal Wales

Who ?

No, “The Who” is actually really British!

(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)

I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully

The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times[1] (Oh, pithy!!)
——————————————————————Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia

“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government“
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well rightjoking me

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castrowith a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down

Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away

Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
——————————————————————“He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man“
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well

I think a refund’s in order

And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it

Happy eat in’

It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
——————————————————————“traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom“
——————————————————————
seriously ?

Seriously ??

SERIOUSLY ???

Welcome to MizFitTV

What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?

How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?

Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?

After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon”(“HE” knows where “HIS”GRAPEFRUITS are)
======================================“B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:

BigDisappointingFascistLoser ?
——————————————————————“Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
——————————————————————WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
——————————————————————“One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
——————————————————————Jiminy Cricket!

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
——————————————————————“(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”

“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”“

“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
——————————————————————Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?

“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
——————————————————————(Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-onlyFascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”

“This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
——————————————————————No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal

In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
——————————————————————Principles

1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”

“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing”

“Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty”
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky“We are the (Wiki) World”WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE”abdicated “his”“neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”

“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeekas if he were a “reliable source”

“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term“Wikipedia Zero”

“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their falsegodGorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine(Spinning Bowel Movement), WikiWordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”

“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?

You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”

That statement is pure, unadulteratedAlabamaB.S.

That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
——————————————————————“They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
——————————————————————“Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
——————————————————————THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk”
——————————————————————Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness”

“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”

“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”

“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
——————————————————————“Honesty” and “politeness” are really great “buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable“honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeale-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it

There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
——————————————————————“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
======================================Core principles

Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]

Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
======================================12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”

[User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User JzG/help|Help!]) [2]

——————————————————————“Bullshit movie” ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:

“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”

“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”

“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
——————————————————————Founding principles

1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————–EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
——————————————————————12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]

Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
——————————————————————So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the articleincludes statements from attorneys representing both sides

17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas

======================================12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])

“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?

Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?

Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
——————————————————————“the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
——————————————————————([WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
——————————————————————Pereira, the imperfect‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:

“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”

But that was not what the study concluded

See below:
——————————————————————“CONCLUSION:

Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
——————————————————————“…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much

Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”

Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————“I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided

I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post

“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b”(a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged“Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOTsmarter than a fifth-grader

These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may

Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day

I gave Liz Szabo and USA TODAY the chance to act like a Spike Lee joint and “Do the Right Thing”, the same day their article came out [1]

I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces

Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint

I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s commentlink from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected [2]

The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
——————————————————————
The articleclaims:
——————————————————————“Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————It advises:
——————————————————————“That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.”[3]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:

1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
——————————————————————
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials”[4]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————“Individual success stories can be misleading, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center”
——————————————————————
The question Arthur Caplan should be asking is:

Why has the United States Food and Drug Administration required Burzynski’s clinical trial patients to fail conventional therapies; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, BEFORE they are allowed to be treated with antineoplaston therapy ?

If the F.D.A. did NOT impose these restrictions upon Burzynski’s clinical trials, then the question Arthur Caplan raises would be moot
——————————————————————
The article quotes Dr. Jan Buckner as saying:
——————————————————————“When I hear a story that is way out of the norm, the first question I ask is,

‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”

“Buckner said”

“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”

“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”

“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
——————————————————————
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science”, has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG

David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma

David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma [5]
——————————————————————
The article then quotes Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group:
——————————————————————“But these therapies may have delayed benefits, taking weeks or months to shrink a tumor“

“So patients treated by Burzynski may credit him for their progress, just because he was the last doctor to treat them, says Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer“

“Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation“

“A patient who isn’t familiar with this phenomenon may assume her tumor is growing“

“When that swelling subsides, patients may assume it’s because of Burzynski, Adamson says”
——————————————————————
This is laughable

In support of this “phenomenon”, the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [6]

The site posits:
——————————————————————“RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”

“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the site cites the reference as:

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
The article posts this ridiculous claim:
——————————————————————“Yet the National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that Burzynski has cured a single patient, or even helped one live longer“
——————————————————————
That’s NOT what this seems to suggest [8]
——————————————————————
Then the article quotes pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in what will no doubt soon be known as a “classic”:
——————————————————————“He’s a snake oil salesman,” says pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”
——————————————————————
All I’d like to know is, which rock did this clown crawl out from under ?

Dr. Adamson, please advise which “snake oil” has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) from the United States Food and Drug Administration [9], and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? [10]
——————————————————————Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?

A:“Mhmm”

Q: but they’re still accepting people ?

A:“Yeah”

Q: on more like a special ?

A:“Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds“

A:“(compassion exception)”

A:“Uh, exceptions“

Q: That’s normal ?

A:“Yes”“So”

A:“(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”

Q: Right

A:“(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Oh, wait !!

Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?

Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
——————————————————————
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
——————————————————————“The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”

My questions about the Merritt’s are:

1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?

2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————“Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trial — now in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”

“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.””

“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said“
——————————————————————
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
——————————————————————Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
——————————————————————One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
——————————————————————CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

133 patients
——————————————————————Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
——————————————————————FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
The article continues in the same vein:
——————————————————————
“In an interview, Burzynski said developing new drugs is complex and takes time”

“Yet the FDA has approved 108 cancer drugs since Burzynski began his trial”
——————————————————————Ms. Szabo and “pals” conveniently “forgets” to educate their audience that Burzynski was using Fleming’s One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials [13], which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added [14]
——————————————————————“Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)

Yeah

“If you would like to publish the results of, of a10 year survival, for instance”

Mmm

“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival inmalignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports“[15]
——————————————————————
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
——————————————————————“Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.””

“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor”

“That’s completely unacceptable”

“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
——————————————————————
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco

Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:

2.National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
——————————————————————2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%)2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%)2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%)2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————–American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
—————————————————————–
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
——————————————————————2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%)2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007👇178,480 (26%)2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%)2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————–American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
——————————————————————
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
——————————————————————Visco, the breast cancer advocate

“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
——————————————————————
The article continues with:
——————————————————————“Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
——————————————————————
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
——————————————————————2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center

Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay [19]

Anyone may post this interview to their website, as long as it remains
unaltered and freely available. Please place a link back to this webpage.

You may click here to download the PDF version of my interview and
save it to your computer. Please help distribute it. Thank you. Gavin.

Click here to download the free Adobe Reader if you do
not already have it on your computer.

This telephone interview with Dr. Burzynski was held in December 2002. The purpose of the interview is to inform people about Dr. Burzynski’s cancer treatment, Antineoplastons. It will be circulated for free on the Internet. I have no affiliations with Dr. Burzynski either personally or professionally.

Hello Dr. Burzynski. I would like to thank you for taking the time to inform people about your cancer treatment Antineoplastons, and your experiences in the area of cancer over the last 25 years.

Is it true that you were the youngest person in Poland in the 20th century to earn two advanced degrees, an M.D. (Medical Doctor) and Ph.D. in biochemistry at only 24?

I’m not sure if I was the youngest, I was among the youngest. In Poland, its 15 years average (Gavin. For a Ph.D.) after you receive an M.D.

What motivated you to come to the United States? When did you arrive here?

Well basically freedom. You see, I could easily stay in Poland. I was a prominent student, one of the best they ever had in medical school and certainly if I would become a member of the Communist Party I would accomplish a lot in Poland. But I didn’t want to be a Communist and after I declared, “forget it, I’m not going to be a Communist”, they persecuted me. So, practically, it would not be possible for me to do any research in Poland. I arrived in the United States on the 4th of September 1970.

You began working at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston?

I was not employed for 6 weeks, then I got the appointment at Baylor in the position of research assistant. A couple of years later I became Assistant Professor.

I have read that your cancer research was motivated by your observation of a cancer patient in Poland that was missing a particular peptide in their blood, is this correct?

Well Yes. First I discovered some peptide fractions in blood and then I was trying to determine their significance. This means that I was screening the blood samples from people who suffer from various illnesses, among them cancer patients. I found some remarkable changes in concentration of these Peptides in cancer patients. Basically there was a great deficiency of these Peptide fractions in the blood of cancer patients.

What are peptides and how did your research develop from there to developing Antineoplastons?

Peptides are chains of Amino Acids, so if you put together 2 Amino Acids, you have a Peptide.

You have said, “Cancer is really a disease of cells that are not programmed correctly. Antineoplastons simply reprogram them so that they behave normally again.”

They do, but we are not really interested in making normal cells out of cancer cells. What we are interested in is correcting one basic difference between cancer cells and normal cells, and this is the mortality of normal cells and the immortality of cancer cells. Cancer cells are immortal. And if you change them into mortal cells again they will die and the tumor will disappear.

I read a humorous part in Daniel Haley’s chapter about you in his book, “Politics in Medicine.” He says that initially you derived Antineoplastons from your friends blood, but had to change because your friends stopped coming around, is that correct?

Certainly it was difficult to obtain a lot of blood for the research. It was a necessity to look for a source that is widely available. I realized from the very beginning that once I use urine, my critics will use this against me; try to just smear me, “That’s the doctor who is using urine to treat cancer.” But there was no other way to do it.

There are plenty of ignorant remarks about your treatment because it used to be derived from human urine. The process you use now does not involve collecting human urine. Please describe the complete process you use.

Ever since 1980, we are using synthetic analogues of Antineoplastons, made in a state-of-the art biomedical manufacturing facility. These have nothing to do with urine or blood.

Would you describe Antineoplastons as natural?

They are natural of course, they exist in our body.

Your treatment does require a strong commitment from your patients as they must be infused with Antineoplastons for many weeks or months, is that correct?

But most of our patients are taking oral formulations. I would say that perhaps 15% of our patients are taking intravenous infusions of Antineoplastons; the rest take capsules or tablets.

The patients who have the most advanced type of cancer will require heavy dosages. There is a limitation of how much medicine you can take by mouth. Fifty or sixty tablets a day, that’s pretty much all you can take by mouth. But if you give intravenous infusion you can deliver the equivalent of 3,000 tablets a day.

You went into private practice in 1977. How was this funded?

Well, I started private practice in 1973. It was not necessary for me to have any funding, because I joined with other physicians.

Is it true that Dr. Mask at a hospital in Jacksboro, Texas ran your first human clinical trial? What types of cancers did you treat? What were the results of these trials?

I would not call it a clinical trial, because only two patients received initial treatment. They were very advanced, close to death and unfortunately, both of them died. But these cases were not lost because we found we can administer Antineoplastons without having bad side effects.

What is the general side effect experienced by your patients when using Antineoplastons? Does it damage the immune system as chemotherapy does?

We are not talking about one medicine; we tried 12 different pharmaceutical formulations. Basically it depends what formulation we use, but when we give them orally, we see practically no side effects at all. Patients may develop skin rash, which may last for a day or two.

But, when we give large dosages intravenously, we have to watch fluid balance…and electrolyte balance. We don’t see any delayed toxicity once the treatment stops. Everything practically goes back to normal within say a day or two. It does not even come close to the adverse reactions that you experience with chemotherapy.

What is the cost today for a patient using your treatment in a pill form and do insurance companies pay for it? *

Well basically, we do not charge patients for medicines, Antineoplastons are given free of charge. What we are charging for are supplies, and we are charging for standard services such as office visits, nursing services, Lab tests, consultation, evaluation etc. And these services are priced the same way as the average medical services, and they are covered by the insurance.

*(Gavin. Insurance companies will rarely pay for Antineoplastons, which is considered an experimental treatment. It also depends on the type of insurance plan someone may be on.)

So if a patient were using the pills, what would it normally cost per month.

About $2,000 a month.

Antineoplastons is most effective against brain cancer, is that correct?

Well, it’s not really correct. Because brain tumors are very difficult to treat, we concentrate our efforts on the toughest type of cancers. Out of our clinical trials, we have eight that came to the final point, which means they proved that there is some efficacy, and six of these are in various types of brain tumors. But there is another clinical trial, which deals with advanced colon cancer, which also proved efficacy and another one with liver cancer. But we still need to wait a little longer to have a larger number of patients treated and then statistically find out if this is going to work.

Basically the treatment works when we have involvement of the gene, which can be activated by Antineoplastons, and such genes, like gene p 53, are involved in 50% of all cancers. The treatment turns on gene p 53. So it has more to do with what kind of gene the patient has in his cancer cell, rather than the type of cancer.

Is there a special diet to follow when using your treatment?

Yes, since we are expecting there may be some changes in minerals, we usually emphasize a diet that is relatively low in sodium. We treat every patient individually. Every patient has a consultation with a dietary expert who tries to individualize his diet

Is your treatment being used in any other countries?

Yes, we have people coming to us from all over the world. I think we can probably count easily 70 to a 100 countries from which people are coming. But the main effort is now in Japan, outside the US. In Japan there are 2 clinical trials being conducted by Japanese doctors. Also, a group of doctors in Mexico obtained approval from the FDA and Mexican government to do clinical trials.

Now I have several related questions about brain cancer in children.

Dustin Kunnari and Dr. Burzynski. Dustin is one of Dr. Burzynski’s great success stories.

Dustin had brain surgery at 2 ½ years old. The surgery removed only 75% of the tumor.

Dustin’s parents, Mariann and Jack, were told that Dustin would only live for 6 months. Chemotherapy and radiation may extend Dustin’s life slightly, but at a very high cost in quality of life with very serious side effects.

Mariann and Jack decided to look into alternatives. They found out about Antineoplastons and after only 6 weeks of intravenous treatment, Dustin’s MRI showed he was cancer free.

One year later another tumor appeared on the MRI. By this time Dr. Burzynski had developed a more concentrated form of Antineoplastons. After 5 months the tumor was gone. Dustin has remained cancer free ever since and was taken off Antineoplastons when he was 7. Dustin is 12 today.

About how many children suffer from brain cancer in the US each year?

The statistics are available for 1999. The new cases of brain tumors in children were counted as 2,200. Now around 3,000, I would say.

Approximately what percentage of children is still alive after 5 years using orthodox treatments for brain cancer?

It depends on the type of tumor and it’s location, some of the toughest are those that are located in the brain stem. Up to 5 years, you have practically no survival when you use the best treatment available, which is radiation therapy. Chemotherapy usually doesn’t work for such patients. After 2 years, 7 % survival. After 5 years, practically none.

Dustin, after brain surgery.

To further complicate matters, Dustin’s oncologist kept threatening his parents with a court proceeding to take Dustin away and force him to take Chemotherapy/Radiation treatment.

This continued for a year, even after Dustin’s success with Antineoplastons.

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

Is it correct to say you have had very good results when treating brain cancer in children?

Yes we have. I gave you the example of the toughest, which is located in the brain stem. We get about 40% survival rates after two years. After 5 years at the moment we have about 20% survival rate. The reason is that most of the patients who come to us, have received prior heavy radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. They usually die from complications from these treatments. Those who survive the longest are patients who previously did not receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy. The longest survivor in this category is now reaching 15 years from the time of diagnosis; and she’s in perfect health.

With the more common variety, which is aciotoma located outside the brain stem, we get much, much better. We have 75% of patients who are objectively responding to the treatment. This means that the tumor will disappear completely or will be reduced by more than 50%.

This is another strong point. It’s extremely important. Children are usually damaged for life after radiation therapy, when we can avoid it and bring them back to life.

What criteria must parents of children with brain cancer meet before being able to have their children treated by you?

Well, practically all of these brain tumors must be inoperable. This means that it’s not possible to remove them with surgery. Except for one category, they should have advanced disease. The tumor should have the size of more than 5 mm in diameter and be located in a place that cannot be operated upon.

There is one category of these tumors, medulloblastoma, where the FDA requires that the patients would receive prior standard treatment and fail before we can accept them. In the rest of these children we can accept them without failure of prior treatment.

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

Let us talk a little about some of your most successful stories using Antineoplastons with children. Probably the most remarkable case is that of Tori Moreno . In August 1998 Tori was diagnosed with a stage 4 brainstem glioma that was inoperable. Her parents were told she would die in a few days or at the most, a few weeks. When did you start treating her?

Tori had Stage 4 brain stem glioma. The tumor was too risky for surgery. She was diagnosed shortly after her birth. The tumor was very large, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem. Her parents consulted the best centers in the country and they were told there was nothing to be done. So finally she was brought to us, when she was about 3 ½ months old. This was in October 5 years ago. She was in such condition that we were afraid that she might die at any time. Fortunately she responded, and about 5 months later we determined that she obtained a complete response, which means complete disappearance of active tumor by
MRI criteria. She is a perfectly healthy child and tumor free. She still takes small dosages of capsules of Antineoplastons, but we will discontinue this shortly.

Tori Moreno 9.28.98. Temporarily enlarged due to taking Decadron.

Tori’s parents were told there was nothing that could be done for her and she would be dead in a few weeks.

Tori is alive and well today thanks to Antineoplastons. See photo below.

At the end of this interview, there is a short interview with Kim Moreno, Tori’s mother.

Tori 22.10.02. A perfectly healthy child. Orthodox treatment consists of high does of radiation therapy and possibly toxic chemotherapy as well. Most of the children are dead in a few years. The ones that survive suffer from permanent retardation, along with other serious side effects from the radiation.

Please do not forget about the interview with Kim Moreno, Tori’s mother, at the end of this interview.

But mainstream medicine has been trying to kill the cancer cell using chemotherapy and radiation, is that correct?

That’s right, yes.

Chemotherapy and radiation cannot differentiate between healthy and cancerous cells?

They can differentiate to some point, but basically, this difference is very small, so ultimately, the normal cells will be killed.

Is that why they have such a terrible effect on the immune system?

That’s right, not only the immune system, but also many other systems in the body. Practically, the treatment is destroying healthy parts of the body.

Chemotherapy and radiation also cause cancer, don’t they?

Yes. For instance right now we see a lot of patients who in childhood were successfully treated for leukemia or for Hodgkin’s disease. Then they develop cancer that is practically incurable, like lung cancer, breast cancers; I even encountered a patient in my practice that developed three different types of cancers, and was only 28 years of age. First she was treated for Hodgkin’s Disease, then she developed bone cancer in the places which were radiated for Hodgkin’s Disease, and then she developed breast cancer after that; it’s really horrible. So there is increased incidence of secondary cancers in patients who were treated previously with chemotherapy and radiation.

Shontelle Huron. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons. maryjo@siegel.net

Ric and Paula Schiff write about the torture their daughter Crystin had to endure during chemotherapy/radiation treatment.

Crystin was diagnosed with perhaps the most malignant tumor known, which is a rhabdoid tumor of the brain. Of course, historically, there was no case of such a tumor ever having a long response to chemotherapy or radiation therapy. She received extremely heavy does of radiation therapy and chemotherapy, because nobody expected that she would live longer than a year or so. So unfortunately she was terribly damaged with this. She responded very well to Antineoplastons. We put her in complete response. But unfortunately she died from pneumonia. Her immune system was wiped out, so when she aspirated some food, she died from it. The autopsy revealed that she didn’t have any sign of malignancy.

But there are also likely permanent severe health concerns related to taking chemotherapy and radiation.

In young children there is permanent damage to the brain. Unfortunately some oncologists who are dealing with such cases are really cruel to the parents, because they are saying, “well, your child will survive, but you are going to have a jolly idiot for the rest of your life.”

Is it true that if parents refuse chemotherapy/radiation treatment for their children the hospital, via the courts, could have the child removed from the parents care and forced to take chemotherapy/radiation treatment?

Yes, unfortunately in some States, the law may require taking children away from the custody of the parents to send them to such treatments.

Jared Wadman. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

Isn’t this what happened to Donna and Jim Navarro when they chose your treatment over orthodox treatments?

That is correct. Thomas Navarro was diagnosed with medulloblastoma. He was operated on and the tumor was removed. Then he was scheduled for radiation therapy. Since he was only 4 years old, the parents knew that he’d be damaged by radiation therapy. Nobody at his age survives this type of tumor anyway after radiation therapy. So that’s why they decided to come to our clinic. Unfortunately I could not treat him because FDA requires failure of radiation therapy for such patients.

And tragically he died in November 2001.

What happened was, the parents decided not to take any treatment. We asked the FDA several times to allow administration of Antineoplastons, because we have already had successful treatments for some other children without any prior radiation. Then ultimately he developed numerous tumors in May the following year. Then we suggested to the parents of Thomas, that if they are not going to take our treatment, they should go for at least chemotherapy. They went for chemotherapy to one of the best centers in the country, to Beth Israel Hospital in New York. The chemotherapy was successful, but he almost died from it. It severely affected his bone marrow. I remember a phone call from Thomas’s father telling me that the doctors are thinking that they won’t do anything else for him and that Thomas will die within a week because of severe suppression of bone marrow.

But I encouraged his father to do whatever is possible because such patients may turn around. Fortunately he turned around, but about a month or two later he developed 15 tumors in the brain and the spinal cord. Then, when he was close to death, when nothing was available for him, the FDA called us and told us now we can treat Thomas. When we treated Thomas he survived 6 months, and the tumors had substantially decreased, but ultimately he died from pneumonia.

Is it accurate to say that the initial orthodox treatment for brain cancer is surgery to remove the tumor?

If the tumor is located in the proper part of the brain. For some locations it is out of the question. But, you are right, that is the first step.

Does surgery alone ever cure a patient with brain cancer?

Well, some cases, with benign brain tumors, when the tumor can be completely dissected, yes, it’s possible. But in most cases it’s not possible.

How much of a risk does surgery present regarding spreading the cancer more quickly and other complications?

Well, not so much regarding spreading the cancer more quickly in the case of brain tumors. Such a spread may happen only with a small percentage of brain tumors that have the highest aggressiveness. But for most of the patients the tumor is not going to spread just because of surgery. Certainly surgery may damage the brain and patients may even die during the surgery. It’s not the ideal thing to do of course because you are removing the tumor and you are removing a healthy part of the brain at the same time. The patient may be permanently damaged by such procedures.

Would you warn against rushing into surgery in light of how effective your treatment is? Would you most times recommend trying your treatment first?

We really would like to know what we are dealing with. This means that we would like to have at least a biopsy; if by chance it’s not going to create sufficient risk for the patient. If the tumor was located in such a place in the brain where surgery is possible, then certainly we could try to remove the tumor. But I think it would be best if we can treat the patient with brain intact and get rid of the tumor completely, because then we risk the least damage possible.

Now I will turn my attention to your legal battles with the FDA. They began in 1983 when they sued you in civil court, is this correct?

In 1983, that was the first court battle with the FDA. The FDA sued us. It took about 6 weeks in court and again, we won.

Then there was an enormous raid by the FDA at your offices on July 17, 1985. What was the reason for this raid?

We were never given a reason. I think there was a concentrated action against a few alternative medicine centers because at the same time there were similar actions in the Bahamas and in some other places.

In the four court cases the FDA has brought against you, have any of your patients testified against you?

Well, on their own will, nobody testified against us. But the FDA encouraged some of our patients, and threatened them in various ways. They forced them to come to the witness stand. But really, once they were on the witness stand they behaved more like our witnesses, not FDA witnesses.

According to Daniel Haley, after the FDA lost its last court case against you in 1997, Congressman Richard Burr said it was “one of the worst abuses of the criminal justice system”. Did Burr ever speak to you about it?

Yes, we talk with Congressman Burr. I believe he is right, because certainly there was no reason for such massive action on the part of the FDA. They knew that the treatment works; that the treatment helps patients, that the patients will die if they win, so they should not do it. All of this was with the taxpayer’s money.

So the FDA has wasted many millions of taxpayer dollars trying to convict you on false charges of transporting Antineoplastons across State lines. What was the motivation for this vendetta?

Well, it’s hard to tell, because it was never properly investigated; why they did it. But, we have some leads. For instance, on one side you have a large pharmaceutical company, which was very interested in getting hold of our patents; this is Elan Pharmaceutical. It happened that I treated successfully a close relative to the CEO of Elan. Elan became very interested in what we have. They came close to signing a final license agreement. But after they learned what we have, they decided to withdraw and then suddenly the FDA and NCI gave their full support to Elan, to do clinical trials with one of the ingredients of Antineoplastons, phenylacetate.

This was a large pharmaceutical company that was trying to appropriate my invention. On the other hand, within the FDA and NCI you have had people who were working closely with this company. For instance Mary Pendergast, who was responsible for the legal action against us, became Vice President of Elan. Also Doctor Michael Friedman, who was initially in charge of NCI cancer research, and who knew that our treatment works, later became commissioner of FDA and he did whatever he could to put us out of business. Not only that, but to simply destroy me.

On the other hand, suddenly the government decided to file for the patents, which claimed the same thing that our patents did. Never in the history of the United States do you have the issuance of two patents for the same invention. It was really a breach of patent procedure. The patent office allowed them to patent something I invented, and which I patented. And dishonest scientist Dr. Dvorit Samid, who initially worked for us, was receiving funds from us and finally went for the higher bidder (Elan).

So you have a lot of leads, which indicate that there was something between the government, dishonest scientists like Dvorit Samid and the large pharmaceutical company, Elan. And it was in best interests for them to get rid of me, destroy me, so they could appropriate my discoveries and benefit from that.

When did you initially apply for your Investigational New Drug (IND)?

We applied in May 1983.

When did you receive it?

Well, it took an extremely long time. Ultimately most of our clinical trials began in 1996, a long time after that. FDA did not allow us to proceed with clinical trials for an extremely long time. Please click here to read the
conclusion of this interview

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

It is important for everyone to understand the economics of the drug industry. I have heard that the cost today for bringing a drug to market is upwards of 500 million and takes about 12 years, is that true?

Yes, you’re right.

The drug company is then given a 17-year patent so that it can make a profit on the drug. It is little wonder the drug companies fight against natural treatments such as Laetrile, because they are unable to patent them and they pose a serious threat to their profit margins. But you are able to patent your treatment, so why was there no interest in it from the drug companies?

Basically you have 17 years from the time when you have approval of the patent and this is independent from FDA’s approval process. You file the patent, once you make a discovery, and then you go through FDA procedure. You spend say 12 years or 15 years for the approval process, then you have only 2 years license from the FDA, because license is going to expire in another 2 years. Certainly the pharmaceutical companies are spending a lot of money in this process.

In our case I decided to develop this on my own, to generate money from my private practice and use the money to support the research of Antineoplastons. Again we were approached by many different pharmaceutical companies, which were interested in working with us. Certainly after the bad experience (with Elan) we are very cautious with whom to deal. On the other hand pharmaceutical companies were afraid of action from the FDA.

The NCI put off testing Antineoplastons using the fact that it failed their standard P388 leukemia mouse test, is that correct?

Yes

What is the P388 leukemia mouse test and why did Antineoplastons fail it?

Well we had informed the NCI that this was a bad type of test for antineoplastons. Antineoplastons seems to be specific for species. Different animals have different antineoplastons; mice have a different composition of antineoplastons than humans. Practically, human antineoplastons may work well in humans, but they may not have much activity in mice. We knew this, even before the NCI began testing. On the other hand we didn’t have good results at all in the acute form of leukemia and we didn’t even accept such patients. It was known that if they only do this type of test, it was not going to work. They still tested and used this to say that Antineoplastons don’t work against cancer. Certainly the fact that something works or doesn’t work against mice leukemia is irrelevant.

I’d like the reader to bear with me in the next few questions, as the point will become clear. One of the chemicals you identified in the peptides was phenylacetate. But it was far inferior to the others and you chose not to patent it, is that correct?

This is not a peptide, this is a metabolite of our antineoplastons and it’s an organic acid. So this is a final metabolite of antineoplastons. It has some anti-cancer activity, but the weakest of all antineoplastons. We knew about it and that’s why after some preliminary experience in the treatment of phenylacetate back in 1980, we decided that it’s not worth pursuing this and then we used antineoplastons that have higher activity.

But didn’t you later find out that the NCI actually holds the patent for phenylacetate?

You’re right. NCI is the owner of the patent, Dr. Samid is the author but Elan has the license to use these patents. All of these three work together.

Why did the NCI patent something that was far inferior to your other Antineoplastons?

Because they knew that this was the only chance that they can get hold of something which has to do with antineoplastons.

The NCI ran clinical trials on phenylacetate in 1992 and found it to be worthless, is that correct?

Well, the clinical trials began in 1992 but it took a few years to have the results. It shows some effectiveness in brain tumors and in prostate cancer. But of course it was far away from the results that we can get with antineoplastons.

When did the NCI eventually start clinical trials of Antineoplastons?

In 1994.

I assume you gave the doctors running the trials all the information about correct dosages, is that true?

Yes, well, basically they used dosages that were 50 times lower than what we feel are effective dosages. We have some patient’s relatives who were present when the treatment was administered. Formulations of antineoplastons were badly diluted. This means that the patient was receiving very little antineoplastons and some of these patients were removed from the treatment after a short period of time because they were overloaded with fluid. Well normally we see fluid overload in perhaps less than 2% of our patients. So it makes sense that perhaps the formulations of antineoplastons were diluted and when the Mayo Clinic (1999) determined the concentration of antineoplastons in blood, we realize that it was something like 50 times lower than what it should be.

Do you think the NCI purposely sabotaged your trials?

I have no doubt about it. They sabotaged the trial; they accepted patients who were too advanced. Their main effort was to give a low dose of the medicine for a short period of time and to stop treatment just for some minor problem, like if a patient developed a skin rash. They were trying to give the treatment only for a very short period of time, like for instance a couple of weeks or a month. And then of course the patient was dying after that. It was completely unethical, it was horrible. As you probably heard recently, the pharmacist who was diluting an anti-cancer drug, was sentenced to 10 years in prison. I think the same should happen to these guys who really were trying to use this for their political manipulations.

Jessica Kerfoot. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

How much influence do the pharmaceutical companies wield in medicine in the US?

Extreme influence. Most of the oncologists, I’m talking about reputable oncologists, they work for pharmaceutical companies, they work in clinical trials, they receive various type of incentives from pharmaceutical companies. And basically these doctors are approving medicine, FDA may approve the medicine, but finally this advisory board may advise FDA to go ahead with this or do not approve that medicine. So really the doctors who are deciding if the medicine should be approved or not, practically all of them have some type of relation with large pharmaceutical companies.

Is there a conspiracy to suppress other treatments or is it just a case of avaricious businesses, the pharmaceutical and hospital industry’s, doing everything in their power to protect their bottom line?

Well certainly they have a lot of power. When I filed my application for IND, the standard FDA policy was such that they would never approve a new drug for an individual owner, only for the large pharmaceutical companies. And that’s why I believe we waited for such a long time to receive the go-ahead for our clinical trial. So certainly there were obstruction tactics. Whether this is a conspiracy or not is hard for me to tell. As you can see, the leads which I presented, like for instance a researcher who worked for me initially and then decided to go to the higher bidder, which was a pharmaceutical company; then the relationship between the pharmaceutical company and governmental agencies. All of this indicates that there is some type of conspiracy. I think a Congressional committee should study this.

Turning our attention to the doctor/oncology profession. When reading Thomas Elias’s excellent book, “The Burzynski Breakthrough”, I was struck by how many times patients said that their oncologists were aggressively opposed to them taking your treatment.

Even after a patient’s success with your treatment, very few doctors give you the credit. Is this due to jealousy, arrogance, plain old denial or something else?

Probably a lot of arrogance. We have some prominent specialists, the best specialists in the world who really acknowledge our results and would like to work with us. On the other hand you have some doctors who hate to see a patient with success on our treatment. The fact that the patient is coming to their office, years after the patient should be dead, is something like a slap in the face. They hate it.

They will do everything they can to lie, to obstruct the information about this patient. We have a lot of evidence that oncologists were lying about the patient’s condition. For instance the patient recovered completely from highly malignant cancer and the oncologist was telling us the patient died from cancer. So certainly, we have a lot of evidence about some of these doctors who are dishonest, who are liars, who cheat. But on the other hand you can’t really put the same label on the entire profession. There are many other doctors who are honest and who like to know about what we have. Of course our clinic has board certified oncologists who are taking care of our patients.

I found an interesting quote by David Stewart, a philanthropist who helped fund Gaston Naessens cancer research in the 70’s. He says,
“I can say categorically that most scientific researchers with whom I have had to deal are highly opinionated, arrogant, condescending, and have built-in, insurmountable prejudices.”

Would you agree with these sentiments? What have your experiences been?

Well certainly, I think he’s right; unfortunately that’s the truth.

We spoke about Crystin Schiff briefly before. This is a particularly despicable story, because when Ric Schiff asked Dr. Michael Prados, then head of neuro-oncology at University of California at San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF), if he knew of any other treatment besides chemotherapy/radiation for Crystin’s brain tumor, Prados replied in the negative. But a few years before, he had sent you 14 letters documenting the effectiveness of Antineoplastons on Jeff Keller, another patient with brain cancer. Is this story true?

Yes, it’s true; of course Jeff Keller had an extremely malignant brain tumor. He had a high-grade glioma of the brain; he failed radiation therapy and additional treatments. He responded extremely well to our treatment. He was one of the patients whose case was presented to the NCI. So there was no doubt about his response. Dr. Prados knew about it. If he was dealing with a hopeless tumor like Crystin Schiff, why didn’t he call us?

Ryan and mother Cindy. Ryan is in remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

Do you know why Prados did not tell them about Keller’s success with your treatment?

It’s hard for me to tell. It happens that Dr. Prados and Dr, Friedman, who became the boss of the FDA, came from the same medical school. So they work closely together, and perhaps there is something to do with the general action against us. It would be inconvenient for Dr. Prados to say that the treatment works if FDA was trying to get rid of us and when his friend was Commissioner of the FDA at that time. Perhaps that’s the connection….

One of your greatest critics is Saul Green (Ph.D. Biochemistry), a retired biochemist from Memorial Sloan Kettering. In 1992 the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), published Green’s article, “Antineoplastons: An Unproved Cancer Therapy.” What were his conclusions about Antineoplastons?

Well, Green is not a medical doctor, he’s a retired biochemist; he never reviewed our results. He got hold of some of our patents and that’s what he based his opinion on.

He was hired by another insurance company (Aetna) that was in litigation with us. He’s like a hired assassin. Not telling the truth. So really to argue with him is good for nothing. Even if something were completely clear he would negate it. He is simply a guy who was hired by our adversaries. He would do whatever they paid him to do.

Paul Leverett was diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor in May 1999. The prognosis was that he would probably be dead before the end of 1999. Orthodox medicine gave him no hope of survival.

Paul was given the maximum amount of radiation he was capable of receiving. It slowed the tumors growth slightly, but this did not alter Paul’s prospects for survival at all.

After completing some research on the Internet Paul learned about Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons. Paul began taking Antineoplastons intravenously, administered by his wife, in September 1999. After 6 weeks Paul’s tumor had grown by only 2 %, Glioblastoma’s normally double in size every 2 weeks.

A PET scan in December 2000 confirmed that Paul was in complete remission. He stayed on Antineoplastons until August 2001 to ensure the tumor would not reoccur. There is just under 20% tumor necrosis remaining in his brain stem, which is probably scar tissue.

Paul’s oncologist (at MD Anderson, Houston) initially wanted to show his scan’s to his hospitals (MD Anderson) tumor review board. But then, for whaever reason, he refused further contact with Paul and did not go ahead with it.

The photo was taken with his wife Jennie. Paul had a web site created in order to inform people about his cancer experiences.http://www.dontevergiveup.com

E-mail: pjleverett@ev1.net

Did Green ask to look at your patients’ files or even talk to any of your patients themselves?

No.

You responded with an article with 137 references, did JAMA publish even part of it?

JAMA refused to publish the article. They decided that they would publish a short letter to the editors. And obviously this is another dirty thing, because letters to the editors are not in the reference books. If you look in the computer and try to find letters to the editor from JAMA, you’ll never find it. So people who are interested will always find Green’s article, but they will never find our reply to Green’s article, unless they go to the library. Then they can look in the JAMA volume in which the letter was published, and then they will find it. So many doctors were asking me why I did not respond to Saul Green’s article because they never found my letter to the editors.

Are they obligated to publish your rebuttal?

Certainly they are, because they put Green’s article in JAMA in the first place, they accepted it without any peer review and then they did not allow me to honestly respond to it. I should be allowed to publish my response to the article in JAMA.

At the time of the publication Green was working as a consultant to Grace Powers Monaco, Esq., a Washington attorney who was assisting Aetna insurance agency in its lawsuit against you. What was the Aetna lawsuit about?

One of our patients sued Aetna because Aetna refused to pay for my treatment. Then Aetna got involved and Aetna sued us. Aetna really became involved in what you can call racketeering tactics because they contacted practically every insurance company in the US. They smeared us, they advised insurance companies to not pay for our services. So based on all of this, our lawyer decided to file a racketeering suit against Aetna. This was a 190 million dollar lawsuit against Aetna. So certainly Aetna was trying to discredit us by using people like Saul Green. And they hired him to work on their behalf.

So there was an obvious conflict of interest for Green because he worked for Monaco who was assisting Aetna. Was this information published in the JAMA article?

No.

Green also questions the fact that you have a Ph.D.. At the American Association for Clinical Chemistry Symposium, July 1997, Atlanta, GA., he says in part

“Burzynski’s claim to a Ph.D. is questionable. Letters from the Ministry of Health,
Warsaw, Poland, and from faculty at the Medical Academy at Lublin, Poland, say,
respectively:

1. At the time Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D.
2. Burzynski received the D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a one-year laboratory
project and passing an exam. (3) Burzynski did no independent research while in medical school.”

Well, the program in Poland is somewhat different than the US. What I have is equivalent to a US Ph.D. When a medical doctor in the US graduates from medical school, he receives a medical doctor diploma. In Poland it’s a similar diploma, but it’s called a physician diploma, which is equal to medical doctor. And after that, if you would like to obtain a Ph.D., you have to do independent research, both in the US and in Poland. So you have to work on an independent project, you have to write a doctorate thesis and, in addition, to that in Poland, you have to take exams in medicine, in philosophy and also you have to take exams in the subjects on which you have written your thesis, in my case this was biochemistry.

As you can see from the letter from the President of the medical school from which I graduated, this is a Ph.D..

Saul Green got information from the guys who were key communist figures in my medical school. The second secretary of the communist party in my school, hated my guts, because I didn’t want to be a communist. So, somehow, Green got hold of “reputable” communist sources (laugh) to give him that information. It is exactly the President of the medical school who certified that I have a Ph.D..

So you are saying that theses people he received his personal communication from, Nizanskowski R, and Bielinski S, are both Communists, is that correct, or they were?

Not only communists, but Bielinski was one of the key players in the communist party in my medical school. So certainly he was extremely active as a communist. And, you know that communists, they usually don’t tell the truth.

So there is absolutely no question about it, you have a Ph.D. and Green’s doubts are totally without foundation. Has he ever acknowledged publicly the fact that you have a Ph.D.?

He’s never got in touch with me regarding this.

There are some mainstream oncologists who have stated publicly that your treatment works such as Dr. Robert Burdick, oncologist and professor at the University of Washington Medical School.

He is one of the top experts in this field.

Dr. Burzynski, there are undoubtedly many people alive today solely because of your treatments, but there could be many hundreds or thousands more alive if the public was given free access to your treatment. Do you see this ever happening?

I see this happening within a few years. We already have 8 clinical trials that prove efficacy of the treatment. However, we still need to treat more patients, because in each of our clinical trials it is required that we treat 40 patients. If we are talking about 78 clinical trials, then the number of patients that need to be treated is about 3,000. We are moving forward, probably in another 2 to 3 years we will have final approval.

You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net

You have fought the government on behalf of your patients’ rights for over 25 years. There must have been a few times when you considered calling it quits. What has sustained you over the years and kept you fighting?

Well you see, basically the principle. Certainly I could practice just regular medicine and not
spend millions of dollars for the research, which I did. And I could go to some other country and practice. But I feel that this is my obligation because what I am doing is right. I’m saving peoples lives. So why should I give in to some mediocre characters, to liars, to people who really misrepresent what I do. And if I fail, then America will fail also. Because really America is the bastion of Democracy in the world. If America is rotten, then the whole world will go down to hell. So if something is rotten in the Patent office, in the NCI and FDA, it is the duty of the citizen to show that this is rotten and should be corrected.

There are a number of good people who can make it work, so why should bad people erode and destroy the entire system. I felt that this was my obligation; I felt that I was right and even if I had to go to prison, I would fight for it, because this is the right thing to do. Otherwise I could not look at myself in the mirror. I would despise myself.

Do you think we will we ever have medical freedom of choice in the US, where we can choose whatever treatment we want for cancer?

I am not sure if this will ever happen. But at least I am hoping that the movement, which we pioneered, like this alternative medicine movement, will bring a lot of good to the American people. After all, now you have official recognition of alternative treatment, more or less, and this is because of our fight. If we wouldn’t fight at that time, then perhaps it would not happen, but maybe it would happen another ten years from now.

Standard medical practices and the observations of physicians who are outside the medical establishment are extremely important, because anybody can make a discovery and improve the health of people. This I think is an important movement, but whether the people of America will ever have a chance to select whatever treatment they want, is another story.

Finally Dr. Burzynski, a hearty thanks to you for keeping your treatment available to cancer patients, for keeping your oath as a doctor and putting the patient ahead of financial gain, and of course, for saving lives. Please keep up the great work. Thank you for giving me the time to conduct this interview and inform people about your work and treatment.

Thank you.

End of interview.

Gavin.

Please be aware. Orthodox medicine often states that people who have recovered from cancer by unapproved methods did so due to a “spontaneous remission”. This means that the cancer just disappears for no apparent reason. First of all, I do not know of any documented cases of spontaneous remissions in brain cancer. In other serious cancers it is so rare as to be unworthy of discussion.

But here is the most crucial point. A true spontaneous remission is when the cancer goes away without any treatment, either approved or unapproved. It’s absurd to suggest that someone who received large amounts of Antineoplastons, and is then cancer free, had a spontaneous remission. If someone has surgery to remove a tumor and they are cancer free for years, we know it was because of the surgery.

Also remember that in many cases cancer patients turn to Antineoplastons (and other so-called alternatives) after chemotherapy and/or radiation have failed. If the patient goes into remission, oncologists often state that it was a delayed response to their treatment. This is a very convenient situation for oncologists. When their treatments fail, they still claim the credit for the patient’s recovery, even after the patient has been on Antineoplastons (or other treatments) for months/years.

Read about Dr. Burzynski’s treatment from the most important sources, the patients who had cancer and who are alive today because of Antineoplastons. The Burzynski Patients Web Site
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

Kim also has an e-mail account she specifically set-up for people to contact her about her experiences with Dr. Burzynski, oncologists, Antineoplastons and cancer treatments in general. Any e-mail unrelated to these subjects will be deleted.
kimmoreno5@yahoo.com

While searching the Internet for links related to Koch’s glyoxylide, I found a recent article on Dr. Mercola’s web site related to a drug called Methylglyoxal (the lead ingredient, which is a metabolite in our body) that has been tested in India for over ten years. Please see,http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/13/methylglyoxal.htm

Thank you for taking the time to inform people about your family’s experiences while your daughter Tori was taking Antineoplastons.

Tori was first diagnosed with a Stage 4 brain stem glioma in August 1998, is that correct?

Yes

What was the prognosis?

The doctor’s basically told us to take her home and prepare for her to die.

Were there any records of anyone surviving with this type of cancer, using orthodox treatments?

None that they could provide us with.

How many cancer centers did you visit?

We originally were at Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial and then went to City of Hope. We also sent her MRI’s to Dr. Fred Epstein in New York to be looked at.

And they all said the same thing, Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and nothing could be done? How long was she expected to live?

Yes, they all said there was nothing we could do. She was given 2-6 weeks to live.

How did you find out about Dr. Burzynski and Antineoplastons?

On the Internet on a brain tumor support group. We read a letter from a father whose daughter was on the treatment.

Did you ask your doctors about Burzynski? Had they heard of him or researched his treatment?

Yes, we asked all of them about it. Most frowned at the idea, the oncologist refused to see her if we took her to see Dr. Burzynski. The only one who told us that he thought Dr. B might have a good chance with helping us was Dr. Fred Epstein.

When did you first visit him?

In October 1998

Did he tell you he could cure Tori?

No. He said he thought Antineoplastons would help her, but he wasn’t sure he had enough time. He was very upfront and honest with the statistics he had with her type of cancer but offered no promises.

How much Antineoplastons was Tori taking?

I can’t even remember what dose she ended up on when she was taking it intravenously.

What were the side effects? In the photos you sent me, Tori is greatly enlarged, I assume due to fluid retention. Is that what it was? How was that alleviated? Were there any other side effects due to the Antineoplastons?

We always had to monitor her potassium and sodium. So, she had to drink a lot of water and therefore we went through a lot of diapers. Those were the worst of the side effects. In the picture, she was so large due to being on Decadron, which we were able to wean her off of in January 1999.

Were you surprised when Tori started responding?

Yes, I have to say I was. It is hard to believe something great is going to come out of something so painful. I guess she taught me not to lose faith in life.

How soon was it before Tori’s brain tumor started reducing in size?

Immediately. It had shrunk in size by 20% after the very first MRI, which I believe was in 6-8 weeks…it’s been a long time and a lot of MRI’s later.

For how long did Tori continue to take Antineoplastons intravenously? Did you administer this yourself at home?

She took them through IV for 2 years and yes; we did this all at home.

Does your insurance company pay for the treatment? Did they try to avoid paying for it?

No, they do not pay for the treatment.

I understand Tori is 5 today. Is she still taking Antineoplastons? Has the tumor completely gone?

Yes, she just turned five in June. She still takes Antineoplastons orally…. she takes 40 capsules a day. Her tumor has decreased in size by 86% and they believe what is left may be scar tissue.

Has Tori suffered any permanent side-side effects from Antineoplastons?

Not one. In fact, it decreased her symptoms dramatically and never caused her any harm.

So Tori is cancer free and side effect free today?

Absolutely….

This is an incredible story Kim. Your child was diagnosed with a fatal brain cancer and the best oncologists and surgeons in America told you it was hopeless. Yet you found a cure for your child, without the billions, and so-called cancer specialists, that the NCI has at its disposal. Have any oncologists or doctors asked you about Dr. Burzynski’s treatment?

They tend to ask very quietly, but never really respond to what I have to tell them. There is curiosity there, just no one is really willing to step up to the plate and believe that the antineoplastons had something to do with her survival.

What do they say now that Tori is alive and well?

The neurologists told us that sometimes it happens and they called it “spontaneous remission”. Again, I asked them to provide some statistics and there were none to be seen.

That is of course the height of absurdity. To my knowledge, there has never been a documented case of any brain cancer going into spontaneous remission. Have you ever mentioned that to them?

Yes, again with no intelligent response.

So they are quite content to administer the same cancer causing, toxic treatments, when they know about your daughter’s success with Antineoplastons?

Absolutely. It amazes me that some of them can sleep at night.

Has your opinion about the medical profession, specifically cancer specialists, changed since Tori’s recovery? If it has, in what manner?

Yes, it has changed a lot. I guess the biggest change would be that I no longer sit back and believe anything a doctor tells m e and that we have to take our healthcare into our hands by searching for legitimate options. I believe we have the right to choose.

What do you think about the fact that some 3,000 children in the US (untold thousands worldwide) this year will be diagnosed with some form of brain cancer, and their families will have to face the same horror you did, the horror of losing a child. But virtually all of them will not be told about Antineoplastons, the treatment that cured Tori?

It really makes me sick to my stomach. That is why I want to talk to anyone who wants to listen about Tori’s Story

Finally, I commend you and your husband for finding a way to cure your daughter, when all the “experts” said it was hopeless. You gave her life when she was born, and then you saved her life by finding Antineoplastons.

I thank you once again Kim for answering my questions and sending me the photos of Tori. Give my best to your family.

Gavin Phillips opinion

Dr. Burzynski is a great rarity these days. He is a courageous man who risked everything battling the FDA for over 15 years so as to allow cancer patients access to his treatment. A doctor who puts his patients well being before financial gains. But how many people diagnosed with cancer this year will ever find out about Antineoplastons? A tiny percentage, because very few mainstream oncologists will inform their patients about a treatment that has yet to be approved. And why is that? The NCI and ACS have supposedly been searching for decades for any and all treatments that are effective against cancer. For over 15 years Dr. Burzynski’s treatment has shown that it is effective. Many cancer patients, including some very young children with supposedly hopeless brain cancers, are alive today because of Antineoplastons.

Here we come to the most crucial questions of all. Why did the FDA try their utmost to ruin Dr. Burzynski by involving him in 4 court cases? Why did the NCI make certain Burzynski’s clinical trials failed by diluting his treatment and enrolling patients who were the least likely to respond to Antineoplastons? If this was a one-time only event, we could dismiss it as an aberration; on overzealous government agencies. But the persecution of Dr. Burzynski is not an aberration, but the norm. There have been many well-documented cases in the last 70 some years of doctors/healers who discovered an effective cancer treatment, only to find the full force of the cancer agencies trying to destroy them and their discoveries. I have learned about several during my research. Dr. William Koch/Glyoxylide, Dr. Andrew Ivy/Krebiozen, Harry Hoxsey method/herbs, Royal Rife/radio waves, Ernst Krebs/ Laetrile/Amygdalin, Gaston Naessens/714 X, Dr. Lawrence Burton/Immuno-Augmentative Therapy, Dr. Max Gerson method/diet.

What, if anything, does Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons have in common with these other treatments? Most of them are natural; all of them are inexpensive to produce, especially when compared to the enormous costs of conventional treatments. If cheap cancer treatments with virtually no side effects were allowed to freely compete with the cancer causing offerings of the pharmaceutical companies, the outcome is obvious. The pharmaceutical companies, and the hospitals that administer their drugs, will lose tens of billions in profits. And this I believe is the reason Dr. Burzynski, and the people who have gone before him, have been publicly vilified as “quacks” and their treatments discredited. The fact is that the pharmaceutical companies control American medicine, and they are only interested in treatments from which they can derive a profit.

Every cancer patient in America, and the world, should have free access to Antineoplastons. It is intolerable, not to mention totally un-American, to give a profit obsessed industry a monopoly over Americans healthcare. Nobody should have the right to force toxic chemicals down our family’s throat, especially when Dr. Burzynski’s treatment has proven effective (for some cancers) and does not have appalling side effects.

One point, in which I disagree with Burzynski about, is the possibility of medical freedom of choice happening in America. It would happen in a year or two if enough Americans demanded it. You can help make that a reality. Please forward this interview to as many people as you know, as well as media outlets. Around ten thousand Americans die every week from cancer; we simply must have medical freedom of choice. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Gavin Phillips.http://www.cancerinform.org

My very first brain tumor was in high school, unknown entity, fascinating, enigmatic

Unknown, is the word

Uh yes, I hoped

I must say the uh vocation initially in my case came at an early stage in my life

I remember very well, 3 years old saying I will be a doctor, a doctor, a doctor, and gradually I became aware of this vocation from neurosurgery but really I didn’t know what from because of vocations like see it
I put in my soul, so what ?
Here we are

vocation
realize that in the following years
My first professional brain tumor was impressed in 1996, something called glioblastoma multiforme, and I was uh, uh, shocked, and thrilled, and excited by seeing a nasty glioma as my register described it

And I was uh in as you can see my poor English
I just wrote in my notebook nasty glioma must be nasty in the history of classification

That person died, unfortunately after a few months, it was a very bad disease, at that stage, was really advanced and uh that was my first ? with reality
The glioblastoma, or nasty gliomas kill people
And that was the starting point of a, of a very complex process that I am still never looking (?)
——————————————————————Hannah’s Operation (1:35)
——————————————————————
In the case of Hannah we wanted to wake her up to make sure that we could remove the whole entire ter (?) as much as we can see, or feel it, without damaging, basic structures

Language, relation with outside world, movement, etcetera, etcetera

That requires a very specific and very expert high expertise from the, from the surgeon, because normally everyone is not awake during this
It’s a very specific operation

Mr ? we were lucky, was there to do it, and I was lucky enough to be the co-pilot

So we performed this procedure
I can’t remember the date now

April, the 1st

April
Correct
Good date
So

April Fools Day

On April the 1st we awakened ?
and I remember very well, that huge feeling of satisfaction, at the end of the procedure

I have, I still have my pictures, do you remember ?

We were taking some pictures during the operation
and that is ? like a trophy, because some people are not very good, some of the people are not very well, but in this case we had fantastic surgeon, a fantastic patient, and a great environment, and it worked very well
And the end of the operation, I remember seeing Hannah’s brain without physical tumor, microscopic means with the eyes
Of course, millions and millions of cells still widespread in the brain
A tumor is never a circumscribed entity
It goes all over the place
Nevertheless, it was a very satisfactory physical procedure
We send the samples for histological purposes
and unfortunately we were wrong, because it was not a grade 2, not a grade 1, it was a grade 3 tumor
? the next step
The grading of the tumors
When grade 1’s and 2’s, usually consider the good guys in the field
But not a good thing to have a brain tumor, but you have to choose, choose a grade 1, or a grade 2
Grades 3 and 4 featured by malignancy
By aggressiveness
They are far more active tumors than the 1’s and 2’s
Maybe the grow much bigger, and they are far more aggressive than the other 2
Specially grade 4
——————————————————————(3:42)
——————————————————————
So you got out most of it, yeah ?

Yeah, it was fun but got a good job here because you’ve got most of the tumor out, and we have Hannah talking, moving, and uh conversing normally
She was no percentage (?) deficit
At some point during the operation she had some stuff, a fitting, some sort of vagueness and she couldn’t talk very well, so we had to stop right away, and change the level of, of oxygenation, but other the operation, microscopically speaking, the whole tumor was taken away

So the tumor was taken away, so it was a success, but in the back of your mind did you know that, did, the job was not complete ?

We always know
We always know that
Except when we are talking with a benign meningeal (?) grade 1 that we can take physically lump away
Except in those cases of rare, rare success and joy
Most of the tumors we know, have millions of cells that remain in the brain, and they can be very, very aggressive

So, did you know in the back of your mind that what you were really doing, in this case, was probably just prolonging her life ?

Uh, in a way we are providing a setting, for a 2nd stage therapy to take place
Certainly, if we do nothing about it in the large (?), which is a (?) part of her brain, Hannah had little chance to survive, many weeks from now
Once the whole thing developed, we knew it was a count down
We need to do 2 things, to establish a way to help her to prolong her life with best programs
That’s, is a universally accepted
Removing a tumor is no longer an option
Again, I believe that (camcorder ?)

Yeah

So Hannah had radiotherapy, and you saw the scans after the radiotherapy, and, and what did you see ?

Ok
We decided, no Hannah decided to go through conventional pathways of treating of tumors, which is oncology medicine (?)
She had radiotherapy, which aim is to kill the remaining cells we have not been able to remove, remove in surgery

So, that happens, and Hannah had a shrinking stage of uh of things, with subsequent scans show the suc success
It was not much tumor
However, the remaining amount of cells were there from day one
We knew they existed, and they were visible on the scan
We could actually produce the scans later right ?

Yeah

And I will show you pictures of Hannah
And we knew there was (reserve ?) tumor
The aim of the radiotherapy was to try and kill these remnants of tumor that have remained behind
In her case, it was not much tumor left, because we know that subsequent scans were done following radiotherapy
Still the small areas of tumor highlighting halo were still here, as you, as a (?), as a reminder, of the main tumor

Inevitably those cells would progress again, to a further tumor, and usually, to a high grade tumor where the tumor progressed, normally is not rare, to see that they, scale one grade
So, the fear here with Hannah was get, this grade 3, would progress to grade 4 at some point
——————————————————————Dr. Martinez on Dr. Burzynski (6:50)
——————————————————————
Quite obviously you knew that I did a lot of investigating

I looked for people in the world who were still alive, who had uh, this type of tumor

I spoke to you

You told me, of, some things uh, and I’d mentioned to you Dr. Burzynski

What did you

What did you think about that when I 1st mentioned it to you ?

Well, when you mentioned that to me I didn’t know Dr. Burzynski at all

I knew there were some people going to Houston for some therapy, among them, one well known Spanish singer, but she’s well known, very well known actually, going from a, from a another kind of tumor, not a, not a brain tumor
But I knew vaguely about this a, this a person in, in Texas, with his uh fancy treatment, challenging establishment, but, as I said, a little
amount of, of knowledge in my brain
in my brain
Well, I knew immediately when you mentioned that, as well as other options that we discussed, I looked at every option you’ve showed me, because you were really active in looking and intimate, in the literature
You gave me 2 or 3 main leads of reading, but certainly Burzynskicame as the most solid one, because the rest of them you gave me were really experimental therapies, with little or no success, and uh more in my dimension but more imagination than technique, with them
So, I look at Burzynski’s story, and was almost immediately moved about, about his personal uh yearning
Is a person who has been, how many years now ?
20+ ?

30

30+, sorry, fighting against the very powerful medical establishment, and subjected to court judgments, to punishment by a, by a (?) community, to intense scrutiny, and uh, ostracized by the so-called uh conventional doctors
Despite that, 30 years + later, still doing his business, in fact, the most important thing, with a huge amount of people, smiling, alive, and very healthy following the diagnosis of the tumor
To me that was something revealing
No matter whether this man advocates, on praying to the moon, or going to the sea, (whatever it is ?)
The fact is the fact
He has a large # of patients, alive and well, following diagnosis of tumor
In fact, the most important, children, at the age of 3 or 4, being treated by this uh therapy, reaching 30’s, reaching 20’s, and alive, and very nice, this a living example, that this man, is not uh, selling air
Ok
For that I went to the films, available to everyone on the Internet, on YouTube, except the usual terms of communication
I dislike very much, they commit (?)
I really dislike it
But, I must admit it was a good way, to put the facts to the public
This way
The main criticism of Burzynski in the scientific community, is the lack of reliable communications
That, that’s a fact
I will not go into this during this interview, this chat

Yeah

Ok
Because I think it’s a matter for, further discussion
I only go to the physical facts that you can see
In the last court proceedings, there were a large # of supporters, saying, we are the living example, of this process isn’t pantomime (?)
Well I think in my humble microscopical opinion, Burzyn, Burzynski’s trying to do, is to show another way to treat cancer

Another way which directs completely from the current guidelines
The current guidelines are full of financial interests, are full of international agreements, and of course someone who attempts to upset this structure will face serious adversity
This man is brave enough to put his person, his family, his world, on the spot, to fight for the truth
To me, it’s clear
This guy, not going into details again, I don’t want to go into technical details today, because something for further discussion, but only the facts he’s presented, is strong enough to stop and think about it
That’s why, I would like to say, in the 1st instance

And obviously you’ve seen Hannah’s su, scans, and you saw her last scan, and you can see uh her

Well since you told me about this, I intense look at the Internet again, all the available evidence, I looked at his, uh, not publications but at his data
I, I have no peer-review qualifications yet, about Burzynski’s cases, but I look at practical cases
Too many, to be a random chance of, oh this is, she has a one in a million
No, it has, many ones in a million to be a chance
So this man is presenting something serious
So, I ask (?) (?)
Forced to do, because, I thought, ok, what you face here is a conventional radiotherapy, chemotherapy, but if you look at the #’s, that is again, in the public domain, people with grade 3’s, will not survive longer
Grade 4’s, do not survive longer
My duty as doctor is to tell the patient, the person with the grade 4 tumor, you have about 11 months to live without treatment
Be lucky
With treatment is unpredictable
(I don’t know ? or all along ?)
But the #’s are #’s
If you look at the data, people die very quickly from a grade 4
Grade 3, follows very closely
So I thought, there’s nothing to lose by this therapy, because #1 is not incompatible wha, with what you have been doing so far, and it gives you a chance to change perspective, to change environment
Go to a different setting, and try it
That’s a fact (?)
Plus the fact that many, many, many people are being treated (?)
under this guidance, and they are surviving very well, and they are alive

Mmm

Hannah’s case
When are you going to Texas ?

We went in December

December
Well you come back just a few days ago

We came back 3 weeks ago in January

So in that period Hannah had her tumor treated with antineoplastons, and there has already been a scan, which shows shrinking of 15%

Yeah

Is such a long, long journey, you have a nice little period, a month and a 1/2 maybe ?

Yeah

After so many months of punishment and suffering, and which have a nice (result ?)
Plus, the emotion of HannahHannah has come back to normal, I think
I remember her very depressed and the beginning of story, and not having any single hope in her mind
I remember a video where she was crying
Now she has this chuckle in the video when she is joking about the scan, and so positive and optimistic, and the results cannot be more promising
That, in my view, (certain was seen ?) in detail, I think
——————————————————————Hannah’s MRI scans (13:34)
——————————————————————
Take a look at this
This area of bright, intensity here, is not in the right, so poorly, is abnormal
And that was the 1st pictures we saw for Hannah
And some people said, that must be a stroke because of this a straight line there, and there
Normally, as a rule of thumb, something with a wedge shape, tends to be a stroke, because the vessel, providing blood, opens in the small vessels in a wedge fashion
It look a stroke to me actually, to, to be, to be honest, the very fact that we thought it was a stroke, but then we came to recognize it was a tumor, for all the features in (?)
So this is the 1st picture
If we look at the, on the side of the screen, we have now a different view
Instead of looking from the feet, we’re looking at front of Hannah
Eyes are here
That’s the brain
Left side
Right side
Look at the left side, because we know, the tumor’s (?) on the left
We look to go, deeper in her head, and we see, a dark area
It’s a different fashion (?) and that’s why you can see the white, becomes like a black
And you can see, the edges of this is strange, formation
Clearly abnormal because nothing there in the side
So this, was the question for the individual
What is it ?
So after a little bit of discussion we came to the conclusion that thought it was a glioma, tumor, from description, in the brain
So

This is after the operation

After the operation

Operation

This is the 17th through the 4th

Yep
We go on the right side better because this is the film
We see here something very clear
I want to get another view, so you understand a little bit better
Yeah, this
In this view, you can see
Can you see that ?

Yep

You can see the (?)
The chunk of bone, we take away, to go into the brain
And these are screws and plates, to keep things in place
2 screws, one little plate
And there, the other one
Ok ?
So this is the axis
Let’s put it on the right so you can see it better
Here, you can see it much better how the craniotomy is performed with one hole, one drill, to put the, the saw and drill away, and you can lift this cover
Ok ?
At the end of the operation we put this plates, one there, one there, one there, and one there, as you can see
2 little plates
2 little screws with one plate to fix the hole
Ok ?
And then, the skin itself
——————————————————————The Future for the Treatment of Cancer (16:18)
——————————————————————
So, so how do you think uh brain tumors will be treated in the future ?

That’s a, that’s a very good question
Uh, certainly not this way
Let me give an answer for another time
But certainly not this way, because uh the chemotherapy, the main, the main group of chemotherapy is that, it is itself a killing agent
You are using, destructive element, to try and prolong life
In, in itself makes no sense to me
Of course, the, the argument for that from the, from the (chemical ?) companies, from the people who produce this (?), excuse me, this doctor, we are saving lives, and it’s true
This is the only way, officially admitted today, to treat tumors, chemotherapy

So do you think we’ll have a cure for cancer ?

I’m hope it is
I think it’s coming, actually, but uh, but uh, it’s not accepted

Then you think Dr. Burzynski’s really on to something ?

Definitely
The evidence is overwhelming
He’s not I think, the evidence
What I think is irrelevant
Oh my opinion is one opinion in, in millions of them
But if you look at the facts, Dr. Burzynski is achieving things
It’s not, it’s not promising
Is it
It’s the delivery of things
If, if I don’t understand it incorrectly
The head of our patients, he’s an ex-patient of cancer
Am I right ?
This girl had a brain tumorHannah was talking to people have been cured
So this is a fact
This is not tales
This is not uh, uh, selling, thin air
This man, whatever he’s doing, because of his story
Part of his secret agenda, thechemicals (?)
be explained
I not asking for the patent of his things
I don’t, I don’t care anyway
But he’s working with compounds, with substances created by this man, that cure people

So why do you think more people aren’t receptive, to the, you know, other oncologists, neurosurgeons ?

That’s a very complex question because uh we are fighting against a very well established protocol of producing doctors that think in a very particular way
Who, whoever decides to direct from that way of thinking is in hot water
Invariably
The scientific community these days, is uh biased by peer-reviewed publications, commonly accepted guidelines, and there’s no space whatsoever, for any, eh, diversion from the norm
Put it this way
Ok
I’m not saying that I directed (?) from norm
I’m not here to argue the system, but I am here, to ask questions
I would like to ask questions
Why, we have to accept
I was in medical school, and I was told by a pediatrician, (?) of the (?) service, babies should a stop breast feeding at the month #4, and they start with these magic formulas for babies
At that, at that point I believed
At that point I was a very young medical student
I said, (?) the head of pediatricians tell me, my baby has to stop breast feeding, at the age of 4 months, must be true
He is a doctor, but he’s a stupid (doc ?
I am so sorry to disagree
He was delivering, a very nasty message
Basically you should continue, 2 years away, 3 years away, when the baby says, that’s it
Naturally stop the breast feeding
You understand what I mean ?
So, in the same fashion, the oncologist delivers the message that they have been taught, by the teachers
And then you go up in the scale
Ok
If you go up in the pyramid, the top of the pyramid is usually money, eh, economic interests, political interests, namely
We go outside the core mains of medicine
That’s why my complaint
That’s why my fight here
I would like to ask those things
I may be wrong, by at the end of the day
I may be
I don’t know
I don’t know all the answers
But if at the end of very good search, I am convinced that this is the only way, I say, I am sorry
I had to ask
Go back to the norm
But (?)
I totally suspect that the norm is wrong
There must be another way
======================================http://www.neurokonsilia.com/About-Us.html
======================================
======================================

A long time ago in 1988, um, he hired us to represent him in his Medical Board case, so, uh, started working for him then, and then there got to be more and more work, and, uh, at some point it was so much work, it was just easier for me to be down here
So I moved from New York to Texas, mostly just to, to represent him, and my wife was in the oil industry, so, it was a “no brainer” for her to move down here too

And how, were you intrigued by this whole case ?
I mean, did you work out straight away that this guy was genuine, and there was really something here ?

No (laugh)
How do you know, you know ?
At the time we represented, uh, a number of a alternative health practitioners around the country, and we heard a lot about Burzynski, but you don’t really know
I mean, um, um, there are a lot of stories out there
Every doctor seems to have a few patients, uh, that were helped
So initially, I mean, how do you know ?
His operation was larger than most of any, uh, health practitioners, alternative health practitioners in the country, and, uh, seemed a lot more sophisticated, but, uh, it’s not really until you dig in the medical records of the patients that you really see what’s going on
I mean, that’s what you really need
I mean,
It’s not really even, it’s
’cause this whole thing about anecdotal evidence, that everyone has testimony
so every doctor
You know what I mean ?
anybody
Even charlatans have testimony
people
one or two people
or 3 or 4 that’ll come, and say w
they were cured, and maybe, maybe the patients really believe that to be the case, but, um, oftentimes there’s other explanations
Prior treatment, um, the nature of the disease
Sometimes it’s such that their natural, the natural history is not straight linear, um, but after looking at some of the medical records, I mean, you know, I think
it’s just,
uh, anybody would become a believer, and indeed, I mean, government, government doctors have come down here and looked at

some of the records, and they were convinced that, that the treatment was causing remissions in some brain cancer patients

So, I mean, obviously lawyers, I imagine many lawyers all over the world would often take on a case, when they know, possibly the guy isn’t telling the truth, but they can see there’s still a story, and they, they, they, they, uh, represent that person, but for you, I suppose
that when you realized that there really was a story here, did you kind of get, emotionally caught up in this whole thing and think: “Right, th this guy’s got a cure for cancer, and I I need to bring this to, bring him to just, not bring him to justice, but, clear his name
Well, I think with Burzynski, more so than any client I’ve ever represented
He represents a unique constellation of medical services
He’s the only guy in the world doing what he’s doing with antineoplastons and now with this treatment, so, it’s really different
Uh, you know, with Burzynski, most of the patients, are in bad shape
They’re either dying, uh, they, or they have a disease for which there is no known cure, you know, like a lot of these brain tumors
So, even from the beginning, what’s different is their are many, many patients back then who were on the treatment, that uh, that felt that without this treatment they were going to die, and so that, that’s much different, than the average, any kind of lawsuit
Right ?
So th th these lawsuits, the Burzynski cases back then and now, uh, these cases matter, in a, in a deeper, and fundamental, and personal way than most anything, well I think that any lawyer does
I mean, any criminal defense lawyer, who defends an individual, is defending that person’s, uh, liberty
Alright ?
Versus incarceration
But here it, it wasn’t so much, or, it wasn’t exclusively about Burzynski, it was really about all these other patients, and they certainly believe they needed him, and, uh, uh, many of them, obviously did
So, so that, that, that’s a whole ‘nother dimension, which typically we lawyers don’t get involved in
So, I mean, it’s a responsibility but also a great privilege to be working on these kinds of cases

You’ve been representing him for how long ?

For a long time
Since 1988, continuously

And can you believe this is still going on ?

Well, you know, uh, it’s, you know, it’s, it’s just ongoing
I mean, until there’s a cure for cancer, for all cancer, either done by acknowledged

or, uh, uh, to be Burzynski’s cure or somebody else’s
I mean, this is ongoing
And I guess the problem is, you know, ultimately, there’s nobody yet
Not even Burzynski has the cure for every cancer or
even every stage, or even ev, every, ev, ev, every person that had cancer
So, because it’s such a tough battle, and because, it doesn’t work on everyone
So you have these open questions
Ah, so, so,
Yeah, I mean, I guess, I, I can’t believe he’s still messing around with these clinical trials
I mean, I think that if the drug didn’t have his name attached to it, it’d probably would have been approved by now
So, and I think, so that, that’s unfortunate, I think, that when you fight the FDA, and even if you win, you know, the F, the repercussions, you know, you know I, you know I
Hopefully the drug will be approved, sometime in the future, but, but who knows ?

So, um, why do you think, why was it, I mean, obviously I came over here as you know, for this case, which is now not going ahead at the moment
Why, why, why is that ?
Wha, what has the judge, said ?

Well, of course, you have to (under)stand, this case involves a different type of treatment
It doesn’t involve antineoplastons,the drug Dr. Burzynski invented, and your friend is receiving, and it involves a new approach to cancer, which is sort of like personalized medicine, where they take a bunch of FDA approved drugs, that have shown some promise, on a particular cancer, but are not, uh, approved for that indication, and based on these early clinical trials showing promising results for genetic testing they give these combinations of FDA approved drugs, off-label to patients, and that’s really what the, this case is about, and, uh, you know I think, I don’t think they, they never had a case
I mean, they never had a case
The, the main allegation, in each, of the 2 patients involved, is that they used this treatment, which wasn’t sufficiently tested, and was non-therapeutic, and whatnot, and we had a, what I would call a dry run
We presented the evidence to the Board, or 2 members of the Board, in both of these cases
In each, in each case, the Board members felt that the treatment, was within the standard of care, given the advanced condition of the patient, or one patient, and given how rare the other patient’s tumor was
So, we had our dry run in each case, and the Board found in our favor on the main charge
They had some technical issues with medical records or whatnot, and, uh, the Board basically said, they took the position, ok, agree to some kind of sanction on these little charges, or, or we’re going to go after you on everything
So, we refused the honor, and, uh, the Board then charged him with the same thing that they already cleared him with, or on, and, and so we had to do, you know, basically the same case again, and, uh, the irony in, is in these 2 cases Burzynski wasn’t even in the country
He was, he was, he was away for, uh, in both, for both cases, when the patientscame
So, uh, the question is how do you hold someone responsible
Even if you own the clinic, for treatment administered and prescribed, by other doctors, and that concept of vicarious liability does not, uh, exist in jurisprudence, and in the law governing professional re, responsibility, anywhere in this country
So, the Board’strying to start that
You know, I think they just got in over their heads, they
Most people just knuckle under
You know, most people don’t, are afraid to go to court, so they’ll sign anything just to, you know, not to go forward, but, you know, Burzynski faced serious stuff
I mean, he set, faced, 5, 10, 15 years in jail
So he wasn’t going to be intimidated, by the Medical Board, and he refused to give in
So when I told the Board at the time, and I told them all along, they have no case, and o on the merits they have no case
We already won, and they have no case now, and, and slowly I think, the Board is starting to understand that

And what sort of a person would you say Dr. Burzynski is ?

Well I think he’s a complicated person
I mean, I think, uh, uh, you know, he, I think like a lot of mavericks; I represent a lot of mavericks around the, uh, uh, country
One of the main characteristics of these guys, is that they have absolute and total certainty, in what they believe in, in what they do, um, and no doubt
Uh, they all think they’re right
They all think that history is going to vindicate them
Now, I’ve represented some people where I personally doubt (laugh) that, uh, uh, that belief, but not in Dr. Burzynski’s case
I mean, I think he’s all, he’s definitely helping people
He’s definitely, uh, uh, uh, making, extending people’s lives, and curing some people that otherwise would have died, and so I think he, and so I think he happens to be right
So, uh, you know, so, but, but he’s a human
He’s got a big ego
He thinks he’s, uh, he thinks he has made an important, contribute to medicine, and he’s not shy about sharing that sentiment
So, uh, I think, and I think that he’s, uh, not American
So he comes with a completely different mentality towards, say, the government
Alright, he grew up in communist Poland, where everyone, where everyone, has to work around, the government, and I think that’s much harder here, and, you know, I think he has expectations that, that he would have a lot more freedom, than it turned out he had, too, and he thought he would not have to deal with the kind of government, uh, rigamarole that you have to deal with in communist, Poland

And, and how do you think it might all pan out for him ?
I mean, I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but if you could look, 5 or 10 years down into the future, and, do you think that he will have got somewhere, to be accepted in the medical (?) of oncology ?

Well, I certainly hope so
I mean, 5, 10 years from now
I mean, I think, at a minimum, what’s going to happen, there will be many, many patients who will be alive, and continue to be alive because of him
Some, will have their lives extended
Some will be cured
Some wi, won’t be cured, and will die
So, I think that’s for sure, going to happen
You know, is there going to be an end to, uh, all this ?
We had a period of maybe 10 years where there was very little action with the Board, but, uh, you know, it’s hard, frankly, I mean, just in, and again my perspective, like I’m in a, like a, a sergeant in the trenches, in trench (laugh) warfare
So, it’s hard for me to see the big picture
I mean, I just keep fighting these battles, and there’s one, after another, after another
So this is really just the latest, and on there’s civil lawsuits, and then there are people on the Internet, and then, you know, there could be more Medical Board investigations
So, lo, look there are a lot of people who don’t like what he’s doing
They think what he’s doing is either unethical or wrong, or shouldn’t be giving drugs, these drugs to people, except under clinical trial conditions, and, you know, he has detractors, and he has a lot of supporters
I mean, uh, mostly amongst the patients he’s cured
So, I don’t know that, that, that is gonna resolve itself
I mean, ultimately, he’s one of the few people in the country, that, or maybe the only person in the country that does what he does, and, it’s not the way medicine is practiced, in this country, typically
Right, and, you know, I think what he does, is, is more, is more patient oriented, in a sense that, once you’ve been told you’re terminal, why should you just get the palliative care that a medical oncologist thinks, you know, they should be given
even though when, no one ever gets cured of chemotherapy, once it’s palliative, once you have stage 4, solid tumor

Mmm

I mean, they give chemotherapy for what they call palliative reasons, which means, not curative
So, this concept of giving, just conventional chemotherapy to make you feel better, extend your life 9 weeks, I mean, y, not everyone wants to do that
Some people want a shot for a real cure, and, you know, based on the evidence with antineoplastons
, I mean, he seems to be giving people that shot, and curing some of the people
So, you, you know, I don’t see how, this thing gets resolved
Up until the time that thetreatment, theantineoplastons is approved by the FDA and, you know,
it’s, it’s hard to see a clear path, for that, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is financial
I mean, it takes dozens of 10’s of millions of dollars

Mmm

or 10, 100’s of millions
So, I mean, someone has to finance the clinical trials
The drug companies aren’t interested right now
They’d just as soon, buy a drug that’s been fully tested
So, I mean, the drug company response has not been overwhelming, because, even though this phase 2 phase, have resolved, and, and, uh, they have excellent results, the drug companies want to wait and see
So, uh, it’s, it’s big money
I don’t think there’s any way in the world Dr. Burzynski, himself, can fund phase 3
I mean, he, he funded everything else now, but phase 3 are, is a much bigger stage involving dozens and 100’s of patients, and that’s just within the financial means of any individual

it seems like it’s unlikely that its going to happen right
I mean, even from the point of view of, what, with phase 3 trials, they’ll be with children

with brainstem gliomas, right
and the FDA’s saying they’ve got to have radiation

Yeah I, um,
I unfortunately, I haven’t been involved in that process
I just see the result, and I, I, I just don’t see how any parent agrees to that, you know

I don’t see how any parent agrees to it
I don’t see how clinical investigator, agrees to do it
Um, I don’t know
I got so, I got some questions of the FDA as to, why they forced him into this particular protocol
I mean, I don’t know
I don’t have any facts or evidence, but I, I, just doesn’t make any sense to me

what’s you’re about that ?

I don’t know
I mean, I, it just doesn’t seem to me, that it’s a, that it’s a fair clinical trial that

Mmm

either an investigator would find ethical, or a patient, or a family, would agree to have their patient treat, their, their kid treated under
I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense to me
I mean, it’s worse than
I mean, both phases, both phases, both arms of the study, you get radiation
It’s radiation alone versus radiation with his stuff
So, I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense to me, given, given the clinical, the phase 2 clinical trial results

So just a, so just a few things, like, you know I’m going to talk about big Pharma, and then talk about the FDA

Right

They talk about the many people as if they’re one person, but, you know, they’re obviously a collective group of individuals who work for an organization, right ?

Well, I mean, I think, the concern is, that the FDA now, by statute is, in no small part funded, by the pharmaceutical industry
It’s like “Pay as you go”
So the, the pharmaceutical ind, industry now, pays for, the processing of the clinical trials by the FDA
So, and then you have the whole concept of the revolving door
You have a lot of government officials going into the drink, uh, drug companies
So I think that’s another problem
So, I mean, you know, I think conspiracy is too strong of a word, m, but, you know, I will say, I don’t think the system’s set up, for an individual like Burzynski, to get a drug approved
I, I, I just don’t see
There’s no support for that
I mean, the days
I mean, it’s like, Einstein, you know ?
He sat in a patent office, and, and doodled, and had his little theory
He could never get his, stuff published today, you know ?
Where did he go to school?
Where was he teaching, you know ?
So Burzynski has a lot of the same problems
They say he doesn’t publish, but, they won’t let him publish
So, uh, or they won’t let him publish , in, in the mainstream journals
So, I, I, I think though, I think the, I think the system, has a strong bias, against a guy with a discovery
So, that’s not quite saying, there’s a conspiracy, but it’s, it’s sort of along the same lines, and, you know, the conspiracy implies some kind of, um, intentionality on the part of one or two, or some small group or coterie of people, and I don’t know, I don’t think that’s really the case
I think what happens is, the institutions are such that, they allow certain things, and disallow certain things
Alright ?
I think that’s just
there’s no
I don’t think there’s any 2, 3, 4, or some, coterie of Rocka, they’re like a Rockefellerconspiracy
People are saying that there are 12 industrials
That they control the world
I mean, I don’t see that happening, but, the whole system is such that, you know, it’s, it’s
I guess what, uh
The, there’s a book by, uh, a, a, Thomas Kuhn, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and he talks about, normal science, and how science progresses, in terms of paradigm shifts
So, normal scientific medicine, works, uh, by big institutions doing, studies about combinations of drugs, after drug companies, invent mostly, modifications of existing drugs, and, less commonly, completely new drugs, and, uh, less commonly, different classes of drugs
So, you have a whole, you have a whole pipeline from a drug company, a whole, uh, uh, mechanism of testing, by the universities, funded by the pharmaceutical company, uh, all the pharmaceutical companies, and that, that just doesn’t lend itself, to one guy, sitting someplace in Houston, or wherever, and having a drug, put through that process
That just doesn’t happenBurzynski is, so far as I can tell, the only person, to ever completed, a phase 2 trials on a drug he invented
I don’t think that’s ever happened, before, and I don’t think it’ll ever happen again

Ah, was it ’98, was it the chairman, uh

Kessler ?

Kessler
I saw, an interview he gave, press, a press conference where he was explaining about, being able to fast-track
The FDA trying to make it possible to fast-track, you know, drugs that have shown, you know, positive, rather than going through all of this sort of clinical trial, and there’s a guy in the, in the press conference who started asking questions about Burzynski

Right

and you could just see quite clearly he was very uncomfortable

Right

asking questions about, uh, about Dr. Burzynski
How do you think someone like him,
would view, someone like Dr. Burzynski?

Not favorably
I think that, uh,

Do you think they must know ?
Do you think they must, even he, let’s just say, if he were on his own, he, he knows there’s something there
That he’s obviously got something

I,
I don’t know, uh
I think, that, the guys in conventional medicine, because Burzynski came from orthodox medicine
He was at Baylor
He was a researcher at Baylor
So, I think, they’re not going to Burzynski, is that, he didn’t go about it, the way, other physicians would have done it, other scientists would have done it
So normally what would happen, is, uh, uh, I mean, I think the critical, point in his story is that, when he was at Baylor, and his, uh, professor was supporting him, this Unger, left, you know, they had space for him
They wanted him to go in the Oncology, uh, Department, but, they wanted the patent, to his drug, and he wouldn’t do it
So, that would have been the more conventional approach
You give up the patent rights, you become part of the team, then some big institution, uh, uh, shepherds the drug through, and then they find some drug company support, who will split the patent with the university
So, had he done that, uh, you know, I think the drug woulda been approved by now, but, you know, it was his drug
He came to America with it, and he wasn’t going to give it all away
So, I mean, I just think that’s, you know, I mean and that’s, you know, I think he wasn’t expecting that kind of thing in America
Maybe in communist Poland, but not in America
So I think that really, you know, set him down the path of being a, a, an alternative health practitioner

And wha, wha, what was it like for you when, uh, winning, the case, in was it, 199, 3, 1998 ?

’97

1997

Well, you know, there wasn’t just one case
I mean, I mean, it was everyone
I mean, I analogize it to, like whack-a-mole, or whack-a-rat, you know
You have, like a rat come out of, of a hole, and you bang him, and one comes out of this hole, and all of a sudden you’ve got 2, and then 3, and, so, you know, during the early ’90’s, I mean, I mean, there were 3 grand juries, uh, we had the Medical Board action, which went to hearing in ’93
The Texas Department of Health sued him in ’92
Half a dozen insurance companies had sued, uh, uh, sued him for, for some, for Racketeering
Uh, Texas Air Quality Department went after him
I’m trying to think who else
So, all of this happened, over the course of 3, or 4, or 5 years, and it was just, continuous, and so, one agency would, would get active, and then, they get beaten down
Then somebody else would come, uh, come up, and surface, and indeed, I mean, you know, it, you know, some of them flat out said they were waiting to see what happened, with this oth, wha, what happened with this other agency, and they weren’t gonna do anything, and then when they got tired, they decided, that this new agency had to do something
So, I mean, that was flat out, what happened
So, yeah, I mean, it culminated in the criminal case, I suppose, but even there it was up and down
I mean, the judge ordered, uh, ordered, prohibited him from giving the treatment to anybody else, because the Texas Medical Board case, ultimately went against us, and then we had to go Congress, and Congress forced the FDA to put all his patients on clinical trials which made the Medical B, Board case moot, and then we won the criminal case
So, after we won the criminal case in, uh, ’97, things got quiet for a little bit
So that, that, that was good
I mean, it was quiet
I mean, relatively quiet, and then, uh, lately in the last couple years it’s been very active again

So the worst case scenario would have been
What would have been the worst case scenario ?

For when ?

And this, this
What could have happened this week if the case had gone ahead ?

Well, the worst case scenario would be, there would be a finding, that, that it’s a depart, it’s a departure from the standard of care to use, uh, off-label drugs, that haven’t been approved by theFDA for an indicated use, and you can’t use the combination of the drugs until someone gives the stamp of approval saying that their safe and effective, which means, you know, you couldn’t, it couldn’t, you couldn’t give the treatment anymore to patients
So you have 100’s of patients that are on this multi-agent gene-targeted therapy, and ultimately that form of treatment is only available at the Burzynski Clinic
I mean, I don’t think that even clinical trialsBurzynski, depending on how you look at it, he’s a few years ahead of, of, uh, well, even the clinical trials
I mean, they’re some clinical trials now on different kinds of cancer where they’re doing 1, 2, or 3 agents
He’ll use 4 or 5, albeit, lesser dosages
So he’s treated 1,000’s of patients like that, but there’s no place else in the world where people can get, the treatment
So it’s kinda the same thing as back in the ’90’s
We have people on drugs, uh, which are unavailable, uh, and, only available through Burzynski
So, if he couldn’t give them, to people, then they wouldn’t get ’em, and, they’re terminal, and, they’re doing well
I mean, or they’re not going to do as well, or they’re going to die
So, it’s, I guess it, it’s sort of the same thing here, ah, uh, only, uh, the irony is all these drugs are, approved by the FDA, and most cancer patients get off-label, uh, drugsDrugs off-label
So that’s, very common in cancer
It’s just that not common with the drug used on these patients, and in the combinations used

So, this finally
Whe, when you’ve, uh, won these cases, I mean, there must be, it must be good, right ?
It must be good feeling

I had a good feeling last week
I mean, I mean, you know, or I’ve been working non-stop, for months, every day
I mean, there’s no day off in this kind of stuff
It’s just constant
It’s just, his war
There’s always something to do, and then I’m a solo practitioner
So, when the judge cut the heart of the Board’s case out, I’ve been telling the Board, that they can’t, that they have no basis to, to, to bring charges against him, for several years, since 2010, 2009, and they’re not listening, and, and, I was pretty sure that once you had a judge look at the case, they would, rule in our favor, you know, but the problem is the Board is, like a law unto themselves, and they think they can do anything, and, uh, they just changed the law, in September
So actually, the Board has no recourse
They, they used to be able to change findings of facts, and conclusions of law, but as of September, 2011, they can no longer do so
So, if the, judges’ ruling s, uh, stands, as I think they will, their only remedy is going to be to appeal to a State District Court, and they’re not used to that, because they, like exercising, uh, complete authority
So, they’re in a new position, and I’m sure this is the 1st case, that they’ve ever, not gotten what they want to, from, from a judge, administrative law judge, and not being able to correct it
So, I mean, that, this is a good ti, completely new experience for the Board, and I feel bad for them (both: laughing)

You, you, you do
As a Board they all sit down, and as a group of people, and talk about Dr. Burzynski, and, and, and work out how they’re gonna bring him down, and then ?

Well, that’s more the conspiracy
I, I, I, I think that, some of the Board members, may know of him
He, but, but, but like I say, he’s appeared in front of these informal settlement conferences, and basically, individually they, I mean, exonerate him, of, of the main charges, but I, I, I think that, you know, when we talk about the Board, the Board other than these a, acting informal settlement conferences, where you have one Board member, and one member of some district disciplinary review committee, we’re not really talking about the Board members, these doctors, and lay members of the Board, we’re talking about the Board staff, and that’s the lawyers and administrators of the Board, and I think, you know, I don’t know
I have some, uh, uh, they need to clean house
I mean, they’re getting some very, very bad legal advice, and I, I just think the legal advice at the top, is, is, is horrible, and, and they need to make some dramatic changes, and I think it would be better for the people of Texas if they, just did some house cleaning with the administrative staff there

And what do you think about the way that, uh, Dr. Burzynski’s been , what’s the word, in England, he’s got a very bad press there

(Alright ?)

and, um, why do you think that is ?

Uh, why, well, I mean, look
I mean, I think, people have opinions
They’re,
they have the right to express opinions
I mean, I think, uh, some of his agents did some things that I think, were not wise, in retrospect
I mean

Mhmm

Uh,

The stuff with the, this kid, this blogger

Yes

(?)

And I think that, uh
I think you have to be very careful, about what you tell people that are expressing opinions, and, you know, I mean, I, I, I think, you know, I think there’s a reason why, lawyers get involved in these cases, and should be involved, and I think what happens is, you know, I think there was a, you know, a well meaning, individual, who just went too far, and I think stirred things up unnecessarily so
You know, I mean, I think someone who had some legal training, acting on Burzynski’s behalf, might not have made some of the, you know, just faux pas that were made
So, I mean, that stirred, some things up, and I think

(?) stirred something up that was already there ?
You know, ’cause, I know, I’ve spoken to so many people in the U.K., and, uh, and you find very few people that have anything positive to say
In fact, a friend of mine who’s a famous doctor on television, when I was here, he was on British television with a little girl, and her father, who were trying to, uh, raise money to, um, come over here and, um, in fact, they couldn’t come anywhere, come, they couldn’t come anyway, because, the, uh, FDA said that this type of brain tumor, she couldn’t be treated anyway
But this doctor, who’s a friend of mine said, uh, Dr. Burzynski is, you know, he’s a medical pioneer
He’s, uh, uh, he said that and then literally, for 2 months, non-stop, I think especially on Twitter, they said that he never should have said this, and the guy is a quack, and he’s a, he’s a fraud, and

So your, your friend got in trouble for saying that he’s a pioneer ?

He didn’t get in trouble, but I mean he got a lot of bad press, for speaking on television with this child next to him, saying that, Dr. Burzynski was, you know, a pioneer, and pioneers often have a hard time, and

Right, right

And, you know, you look at Twitter, uh, you probably don’t
You could be (laugh) and you just see, it’s probably, probably the only, 30, hard, hard core people, who spend, all of their time, trying to

Yeah, I think that’s right
I think it’s a very small group, of people, that are making pretend it’s a big movement
I mean, we’ve looked, at some of the traffic
We’ve analyzed some of the traffic
I don’t even think it’s 30
I think it’s more like, 3, or 4, or 5, that are creating things, and then someone had some friend who’s an actor, who has, you know, 3 million followers, and all
So it’s really a very small group of people, but historically, medical doctors who have stood up for Burzynski, have had negative consequences
We had, someone from the National Cancer Institute, NIH testify, this Nick Patronas, and he got in a lot of trouble for doing that
So, you know, it’s not, it’s, unfortunately, you know, speaking up for Burzynski can have, uh, negative career consequences, or, or just some bad P.R., but that’s, part of being a pioneer
It doesn’t mean that, uh, Burz, I mean, if anything, I mean, it shows, it shows that’s like the medical mafia
Yeah
So, that’s what I call, the church of medical orthodoxy
So, that’s what I call
So

Well I, I think it’s gonna be so interesting when I get this film broadcasted, to see what kind of reaction we get
It, it’s just a story I felt I had to (?)

Where are, where are you going to try and get it ?

I’m going to try and get it
I know people at the BBC

Right

I’ve worked in television
So I’m going to try

Oh really, (?)

I’m gonna try those avenues, but you know what ?
Even if it doesn’t

You have cable
You have some kind of public access ?

Yeah
I’ve, I’ve worked in television for years
So I’ve, I have a very good stab at getting it out there, but if I don’t, I’ll get it broadcasted on the Internet

Oh sure
You do, do a YouTube or something, or do what Merola did as a documentary

(?)

That’s had an amazing impact

Yeah
He’s making a sequelEric was just over in England

Oh really ?

I looked after him when he came over

Yeah
He wanted to talk to some of the patients and doctors

Eric, I said, ah, you know, so, we’ll see
But listen, I really appreciate the opportunity to ah

Ok, no problem

really, to be able to talk to you
======================================
======================================http://www.richardjaffe.com
======================================

“He also stated quite frankly during the Google Hangout that nothing will ever change his mind”
——————————————————————Woo, Bob did NOT provide enough evidence that would cause me to “change my mind”
——————————————————————“So what’s the point of any further discourse?”
——————————————————————Woo, the point is, it gives you the opportunity to explain why you lied to The Guardian [2]
——————————————————————“His idea of “debate” is having critics post comments on his blog; whether that is to drive up page views or merely to seek attention we’ll never know”
——————————————————————Woo, who suggested leaving comments on my blog ?

Bob ? [3]

9/28/2013 Google+ Hangout
——————————————————————1:13:00
——————————————————————“Okay, I’ll look at that, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, okay ?“

“Um, and I’ll respond on your web-site“

“Um, seems only fair“
——————————————————————1:14:00
——————————————————————2:09:00
——————————————————————“… and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run“
——————————————————————2:10:15
——————————————————————2:18:00
——————————————————————“Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there“
——————————————————————2:19:00
——————————————————————“What none of us understands is his motivation”

“I have discussed this privately in e-mails with Bob B. and you, Guy”

“When asked about this during the session on Saturday all he said was that he wanted to correct what he perceives as misinformation from Burzynski critics on social media”
——————————————————————Woo, you’re obviously NOT from Texas

It’s like a whole ‘notherCountry

My motivation ?

I am a Texan and an American and I do NOT have any respect for individuals who lie about cancer treatment on social media

Verstehen ?

There’s a saying:

“Don’t mess with Texas”
——————————————————————“It has to go deeper than that”

“He didn’t wake up one day and out of the blue decide he was going to champion Burzynski”

“He has to have some connection, either personal or commercial”
——————————————————————Woo, you’re still wrong

Prove it
——————————————————————“The sheer amount of time and effort he’s pored into writing hundreds, if not thousands of comments on science blogs, his rabid attempts to edit Wikipedia and his own blog posts indicates he something invested”
——————————————————————Woo, why don’t you count the amount of comments I posted on “Orac’s” Respectful Insolence science blog and let everyone know the results ?
——————————————————————“He denied he works for Burzynski as he stated he doesn’t even live in Texas anymore, but that is irrelevant”

“I don’t believe Marc Stephens lived in Texas for the duration of time he represented the clinic”
——————————————————————Woo, who cares what you think about Marc Stephens ?

Prove it
——————————————————————“I wish he would just be honest and tell us why he has spent devoted so much of his time over the past year (almost) promoting and supporting Burzynski (and Merola, for that matter)”
——————————————————————Woo, where have I been “promoting and supporting” them ?

Everything on my blog is devoted to showing how “The Skeptics™” lie
——————————————————————“I was going to say it would be hard to go back to calling him an idiot after hearing him speak on Saturday, as he became humanized”
——————————————————————Woo, I have no problem calling you an “idiot” after you lied about me [2]
——————————————————————“His folksy “y’all” and his laughter made him a real person”

“He was no longer just words on a screen, but a living, breathing human being”

“However after seeing the Tweets he posted immediately following the Hangout, where he reverted to his juvenile insults, his name-calling, his inability to write a coherent sentence and his out-and-out lack of respect for people like you and Dr. Gorksi has made me reevaluate my stance”
——————————————————————Woo, please cite one of these “supposed”Tweetsyou have a problem with

Surely you did NOT think I was giving Bobcarte blanche to continue on Twitter without proving his case ?
——————————————————————“He simply deserves to be ignored”

“He has a serious personality disorder and doesn’t merit any of our attention ever again”
——————————————————————Woo, my personality is serious enough NOT to lie about people to The Guardian

“He kind of admitted it when he said that he’d be persuaded by the FDA not having granted phase 3 approval; defining your rejection criteria according to some test whose outcome is already know is one of the techniques used by homeopaths”
——————————————————————Guy, which homeopathic “remedy” has received Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) and FDA Phase 3 approval ?
——————————————————————“You do not interpret this thing as I would like, therefore you are denying this thing happened, therefore you lie, is another,”
——————————————————————Guy, what massive cognitive dissonance dreamworld are you living in ?
======================================Guy Chapman – 10/2/2013 – 12:28 am

“Actually, we know what he is”

“A troll”

“Why did we let ourselves get sucked in?”
——————————————————————“Troll” is an excusecowards use to try and label someone in order to claim that they should NOT be put in a position to do something they agreed to
======================================IamBreastCancer – 10/2/2013 – 12:27 am

“Excellent summary, Guy”

“I agree with WooFighter that his motivation is suspect, but there are some desperately lonely attention-seeking people out there who will grasp onto any controversial issue just to get “in the game.””

“As a cancer patient myself, I was struck by the fact that he could yammer on for almost 2-1/2 hours without showing a shred of concern or compassion for cancer patients or legitimate cancer treatment questions”

“His behavior before, during and since the debate clearly shows he absolutely has no regard for real facts or evidence”

“I’m thankful that he’s unable to write coherently, as it cripples his capacity for causing harm to cancer patients”

“Unlike so many other charlatans out there, I don’t think he represents much of a threat to patient safety, just a lot of noise and bandwidth waste”

“His 15 minutes of fame needs to end”
——————————————————————Quidama, I’m sorry you have cancer, but it sounds to me like you seriously need a “reality check”: [4]
——————————————————————A. Tried to “control the conversation”1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————B.Interrupted the other individual the most:1. 30+ – Bob Blaskiewicz interrupted DJT
2. (20+ back at ya) – DJT interrupted BB
——————————————————————C.Asked the most questions:1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————D.Most speaking time:1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————E.Most words:1. 13,933 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 8,847 – DJT
——————————————————————F.Most characters:1. 66,123 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 43,245 – DJT
——————————————————————G.Acted as if they were teaching a class, and dictating what your possible responses were, implying that they did NOT consider this to be a “debate” where the participants were free to choose their own responses:1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————H.Proved they do NOT know how to debate1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————I.Proved they do NOT have manners1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————J.Must have thought they were on the Morton Downey Jr. talk show (or do you prefer Jerry Springer ?)1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————K.Controlled themself best:
1.2. DJT
——————————————————————L.Did NOT need help from any pro-position pundits
1.2. DJT
——————————————————————“Thanks for all you do!”
——————————————————————You’re welcome

——————————————————————BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
——————————————————————1:25:14
——————————————————————BB – “Well we do have for for for for one thing, um, I guess to understand is that we are uh motivated by um uh a respect“
======================================Bob, would that include “a respect” for “facts” ?

Because you seem to be the Hillary Clinton of “The Skeptics™”, in that you want people to think of the “children”, yet you also seem to want people to ignore that your “facts” might be “factually-challenged” and tainted by your “bias”======================================BB – “this is the one thing that that all Skeptics I think um are uh respect critical thinking“
======================================Bob, I am very “critical” in my “thinking” of “The Skeptics™” who indicate that they supposedly want to “debate” and who claim that they will “respond on my blog” because “it only seems fair”, but then do NOT respond

Is THAT the kind of “critical thinking” you are referring to ? [1]======================================BB – “um, and um respect scientific uh a we we’re mostly scientific enthusiasts“
======================================Bob, would that include Trollolo Mark McAndrew (@MarkMcan) who exhibited what type of “scientific enthusiasts”“The Skeptics™” attract, when he Trollolo’d all over “The Telegraph” ? [2]======================================BB – “but for the most part we all respect scientific consensus“
======================================Bob, does that include the “scientific consensus” reached by the doctors who decided that Burzynski’s antineoplastons exhibited “antitumor activity” ? [3]======================================BB – “and we respect scientific method“
======================================Bob, then why does your “The Other Burzynski Patient Group” (TOBPG) blog NOT “respect the scientific method” by indicating if those patients had no prior treatment, biopsy only, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, or some other treatment, and how long they were on any therapy, if any ?======================================BB – “and have an enthusiasm for living in the real world”
======================================Bob, exactly what “world” are you living in that you adopt lying and deception as part of your agenda regarding Burzynski ?======================================BB – “this is something that like all of us us are about”
——————————————————————1:26:00
——————————————————————Bob, do you mean what I wrote about above?======================================REFERENCES:
======================================[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================[2] – “The Skeptics™” Mark McAndrew is Trollolo:
——————————————————————https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/the-skeptics-mark-mcandrew-is-trollolo/
======================================[3] – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”
——————————————————————https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================

“Merola bemoans how unfair it is (to him) that the FDA is requiring a phase III clinical trials for Burzynski’s antineoplastons and refusing to grant accelerated approval for them, as it did for Temodar and Avastin”

“It seems like a compelling point on the surface if you don’t know about the drug approval process or Burzynski; indeed, The Skeptics who viewed the movie wondered about this claim”

“Here’s what, as far as I can tell from my reports, Merola leaves out”

“Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval”

Does Gorski provide a reference to support his statement ?

“Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval”

NO !

Does he provide a citation ?

NO !!

Does he provide a link ?

NO !!!

Why not ?

Is it because Science Based Medicine . org proclaims:

“Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” ? [3]

1/1999 Temodar (Temozolomide): received accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of anaplastic astrocytoma (brain cancer) patients [6]

Was the United States Food and Drug Administration’s 1/1999 accelerated approval based on the PUBLISHED FINAL RESULTS OF A PHASE II (2) CLINICAL TRIAL?

The answer is: NO

1/1999 – FDA Accelerated Approval [6]

9/1999 – Phase 2 publication [7]

12/2000 – publication [8]

5/6/2009 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval of Avastin (bevacizumab) for people with glioblastoma (brain cancer) with progressive disease following prior therapy [9]

Was the United States Food and Drug Administration’s 5/6/2009 accelerated approval based on the PUBLISHED FINAL RESULTS OF A PHASE II (2) CLINICAL TRIAL?

.2/10/2009 – 1st arm Phase 2 publication [10]

5/6/2009 – FDA Accelerated Approval [9]

1/1/2010 – 2nd arm publication [11]

The answer is: The 1st arm of the phase 2 clinical trial was published .2/10/2009, before the 5/6/2009 FDA approval, and the 2nd arm was published 1/1/2010, after the FDA approval

So, Gorski has been caught in yet another LIE

But no worries !

5/31/2013 Orac posted:

“Burzynski has a contingent of defenders who have targeted skeptics like me for special abuse, up to and including harassing me at work by calling my university to complain about my online verbiage critical of Burzynski and implying that I am somehow doing something wrong”